Darwin Day – a great day to celebrate the miracle of life

Happy Darwin Day. In case you didn’t know, 12th February is the birthday anniversary of Charles Darwin, born this day in 1809.

For many it’s a day to celebrate Darwin’s contribution to science, and to promote science in general. If you’re Richard Dawkins, it’s a day to revel in atheism and tweet statements like “Darwin amazingly showed that complex, apparent design doesn’t need a designer”, and generally bang on about how only the willfully ignorant and childishly superstitious could believe in God after Darwin’s theory of evolution brought the light of reason and truth into the world.

For me, it’s a day to reflect that if Charles Darwin hadn’t been born, I wouldn’t have been born 170 years later. He’s my great-great-great grandfather. Without him there’d be no me, so February 12th makes me think about the miracle of existence; the random links in the chain of my life, the fact I exist at all. Wondering about the miracle of life brought me back to belief in God – God simply defined as that which sustains all things in life.

Darwin Day has become something of a cause célèbre in recent years. Both the American and British Humanist Associations support an international campaign to have 12th February recognised as a public holiday. After all, they reason, Christians have holidays so why should atheists be excluded from the party? Why should Christians get the monopoly on state holidays?

Yes, it must be so hard for my secular humanist and atheist friends, forced into taking public holidays they don’t believe in every Easter and Christmas. Every time an atheist friend has to say ‘Happy Holidays’ instead of ‘Happy Christmas’ I feel the depth of their oppression, and know they’d rather be spending the day like any day devoid of religious signficance, ie. at work. With Darwin Day, they’ll be able to work happily all year round knowing that at least they’ll have one holiday to call their own.

Okay, I’m being flippant. Darwin Day is a daft idea, but I’m all for it. The personal reasons I have for celebrating February 12th are the same reasons everyone has for celebrating : the miracle that we’re here at all. Darwin’s questioning attitude to the miracle of existence is the same questioning attitude that leads people to belief in God. The more people wondering ‘What is this funny thing called life?’ the better. Darwin Day might lead more people to God. And who doesn’t love a public holiday?

I don’t say that they must be nonexistent. I just say that without evidence, I have no reason to think that they do exist.

Peter

Do these comparative experiments prove that humans ask why they’re here and that apes do not?

Rebecca Nichol

Well where did you get the information from that 97% of foetuses with Downs Syndrome are not aborted? At least I’ve provided a source. And even if only one baby with Downs Syndrome is aborted that is still eugenics. Using your logic re zygotes etc maybe they would spend eternity in bliss but you would likely spend eternity hell for mass murder. I am applying your ridiculous logic here not mine. Furthermore, the purpose of human life according to Christian teaching is to bring glory to God not to get to heaven. So it seems that your knowledge of theology is even worse than your knowledge of evolution, intelligent design and history.

I’m totally in favour of women being able to make every decision they like about their own bodies. But women do not abort their own bodies, they abort the bodies of another human being. Moreover, abortion does not enhance the rights and status of women and girls because where sex selective abortions occur, it is always females that are aborted. This has led to a great gender imbalance in places where male children are much more highly favoured such as India and China.

Quite so and something that Catholics understand very well. As far as that goes if you want evidence you have to subject yourself to the experiment.

However, you were asked specific questions which remain unanswered because my point was not that evolutionary theory is invalid but that when subjected to analysis there remain a number of difficulties as you acknowledge in your comment about fossil anomalies and these are recognised by sceptical scientists like myself.

“The mathematics are so irrefutable, the theory is being used to develop the computers you are using”.
A bit confused to to say the least and partly because I was referring to to the mathematics of evolution as is and not as could be.

Hennergogs

Keep posting Peter.

Hennergogs

I think you need to understand what is meant by in the image and likeness of God.

http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

Where did I get my information? Common sense. Compare the number of Downs Syndrome births from today to the pre-abortion era. Also the fact that most people don’t consider Downs Syndrome to be worthy of abortion, especially the religious who wouldn’t abort even if it were a worse condition. It’s simply a number that is literally impossible to believe. Seriously, take the number of Downs Syndrome births, then multiply that 33 fold and that’s the number you claim are aborted. Then compare that the the number of total abortions and let me know if it adds up.

First, it’s not “my” logic regarding life at conception – it’s yours. And yes, the person doing the abortion may be risking hell, but so what? Don’t you guys hold up Jesus as the greatest figure of all time because he sacrificed himself to save billions? How is this different? Oh, and Jesus is in heaven, too. Some sacrifice. Don’t try to lecture me on theology to try to get around your illogical talking points.

You’re using examples of abortion from totalitarian states to justify your opposition. Why not look to a secular democracy to see how they handle it? Your argument is so intellectually dishonest, if would be like me pointing out the Crusades as an example of Christianity.

There’s no such thing as atheist missionaries. Atheism has no dogma, no tenets, just a lack of belief in deities. People can arrive at such a position by many methods. You’re continued misrepresentation of my stance indicates that you are incapable of defending your stance honestly. This is further evidenced by your claims of genocide regarding abortion. Just because more blacks have abortions doesn’t mean abortion is genocidal or racist. It’s just a fact. Mind filling me in on the pregnancy rate for blacks vs. other races? Mind filling me in on the socioeconomic status of blacks compared to other races? But no, you’d just like to oversimplify the case to advance your dishonest agenda.

SimonS

As an interesting aside, do you actually know whether apes are interested in whether they are here or not?

We can be confident in the context of, say, earthworms – but I would be very hesitant about stating that creatures with clearly quite substantial cognitive abilities (such as various primates, dolphins or perhaps even pigs) don’t apply those abilities.

Obviously, I would be hesitant about saying that they do, too…

Sara_TMS_again

Yes, I’m certainly asserting that an afterlife exists. Some philosophers would make that case via natural philosophy, but I myself would understand it as revelation again- that you couldn’t tell beforehand that that would be the case. I’m more of a materialist and less of a Platonist, in other words.

Acleron

What meaning do you ascribe to the bogus word ‘evolutionism’?

Acleron

Uniquely configured? Hardly, the amount of life bearing environment found so far amounts to a smear on a small planet. The vast majority of the universe is totally inimical to our lifeforms.

Rebecca Nichol

Could you provide some evidence for your wild speculations about the abortion of Down’s Syndrome babies please? I’m afraid common sense is subjective and doesn’t count. India is a secular democracy, not a totalitarian state. All the info you need about black genocide is on the black genocide website that I’ve already provided a link to. Comparing Jesus to an abortionist is probably the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard. Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead and offered himself. He did not terminate the life of anyone. I can’t believe that you used to be a Christian spouting this nonsense. I’m not surprised you’re an atheist if that’s what you believe. And as to atheists not evangelising, what do you call this:

Yes, I thought you wouldn’t recollect them as you failed to answer any of the objections to your belief system when they were presented.

Rebecca Nichol

Belief in evolution

Acleron

If you are dead then any such belief is rather superfluous. The silly adage that ‘man does not live by bread alone’ fails to answer why an unevidenced belief is thought to keep you alive in the absence of food or life saving medicine supplied by science.

Acleron

Learn what a theory is and then you might be able to adequately enter the debate. Also you might read somebody’s post before answering and thus demonstrating you haven’t.

Acleron

Having stated there are no significant anomalies, how on earth do you conclude I acknowledge any?

Perhaps you might know what you are talking about re mathematics but it doesn’t correspond to any mathematics from Haldane and Fisher and certainly means nothing in the genetic algorithms employed in computer processor design.

$74497298

I think I have some inkling of this. It is certainly not meant to describe a visual or constructive identity or similarity – how could it? – as God is not a physical thing of any kind. But we understand that our spirit or soul will exist for future “time unlimited” (like God), or for something that fills the gap (when the concept of “time unlimited” is redundant) in an essential way should there “one day” (there we go again!) be time no longer. “image and likeness” also suggests some further common attributes – but not all.
I’d be interested if you could cast any further light on this.

Paddy S

And learn to read before you write. You didnt address any of the problems I raised in detail….

1. There is plenty of ideas and observations on how self replicating organisms came about. Te lots of ideas no evidence.

2. Ye’re right I did mix evolution with abogenesis for one obvious reason many evolutionists portray themselves as knowing the answer to these issues as arising from a darwinian process of natural selection, and random variation. Blind chance.

3. There is zero evidence of any supernatural intervention thus your god vanishes in the ever decreasing gaps as usual. Ye I dont think so many of the universe many mysteries seem to while not prove a Creator they most certainly do not argue against one. In fact many discoveries are putting the darwinists and certain atheists underscrutiny. The Big Bang theory destroys materialism and to many atheists horror seemingly pin points a creation point in history, something theologians have known for centuries..

Peter

What are you talking about? Space is replete with the building blocks of life. It is only relatively recently that our telescopes have been capable of identifying complex organic compounds in the giant molecular clouds and planetary nebulae of our galaxy.

In the next decade, when telescopes like the extremely large European telescope are completed, with resolutions scores of times greater than the Hubble telescope, we will be able to identify even more complex compounds, possibly bridging the gap to life itself.

The universe is turning out to be a cosmic crucible for the creation of life-building compounds. That the universe is inimical to life couldn’t be further from the truth.

Acleron

You claimed that hips were necessary for walking, the mudskipper proves you wrong again.

The rest of your comment indicates you don’t even know what we mean by evolution, you are just spouting words told you by someone else and with no understanding. But I shouldn’t be surprised because that is religion for you.

Rebecca Nichol

The mud skipper doesn’t walk. The coelacanth was allegedly extinct for 6 million years before it turned up alive in 1938. And guess what! In 6 million years it hadn’t changed a bit. Not only could it not walk on land, it didn’t even live near any land. So it’s funny fins were really some evolutionary advantage in that respect. Apparently, it doesn’t taste very nice.

Acleron

So after claiming I didn’t address your points you reply to my answers to those same points, hilarious.

The Big Bang Theory destroys materialism? What nonsense have you cooked up here? And don’t complain about lack of evidence for a biogenesis when we can pinpoint two time periods on either side of what could have been a protracted event. Until quite recently we did not know the precise way that hydrogen and oxygen combined to produce water. There is no doubt that they do combine and yet again require no supernatural hogwash. Similarly we know the building blocks for the chemicals that replicate and we know their structure in a replicating organism why bring some useless god into the equation, what possible use could it be?

And finally, theologians knew nothing and they still have learned nothing about the origin of this universe that hasn’t come from scientists. The father of the mathematics describing an Einsteinian origin stated he had to compartmentalise his religious beliefs from his physics and had to admonish your boss from jumping on a bandwagon. I suppose he was lucky he didn’t suffer the same fate of so many from the catholic church by dealing with facts rather than superstitions.

Paddy S

Lets see Big Bang theory suggests that the universe had a beginning, that there was a creation like event when time and space came into play, there was nothing before and that had certain things not happened in such a precise manner – the universe would have collapsed within moments of its creation. It also makes a mockery of materialism because the theory suggests at one times there was nothing (0) and poof there was everything, so materialism rests on foundations which are false.
As for those building blocks of life you do know that this also depended on fact that the earth itself had the pre conditions suitable for life etc.
Oh and spare me the mythological science vs religion myth. Its been done to death and there was no scientists outside of Galileo who got done for teaching science (he in fact got done for theology) … as for father of mathematics there are loads of them you better be more precise. Theologians helped in sowing the philosophical seeds to create modern science in the middle ages by way.

James M

233 now, at 1 a.m on Feb 14 GMT

James M

The meaning of the phrase has been very much debated. I recommend a commentary on Gen.1.26 ff.

As for evolution, I think it makes admirable theological sense. If – as seems to be the case – the 6 days +1 of Gen.1 are not real time passed within the narrative of creation, but a theological framework of the author’s, the whole controversy between “Genesis” (in the blue corner) & “Evolution” (in the red), becomes a huge irrelevance, b/c in that case the text is not saying that the creation took 6 days.

It is in any case ridiculous to compare a pre-scientific text with a scientific notion of origins – they are not comparable, so they cannot collide.

FWIW, there is some ambiguity about the word “creationism”.

James M

God is not an explanation. Saying that God created all things,though true, is not an explanation for anything. It is not meant to be. Trilobites are as they are, not because God created them (though God did so), but because they are entities in a body of processes within the natural order, that brought them about, to cause them to be as they are. “God dunnit” is not an answer, except in theology, where it is fully appropriate. If one is studying trilobites, not from a theological POV, but from that of the natural sciences, a different kind of answer is called for; not a theological one.

This is not peculiar to the sciences – one makes a meal, not by praying, but by using a cookery-book or a microwave or by opening a packet, or that kind of activity. But no-one complains that Gordon Ramsay & “Come Dine With Me” are in league w/ Nigella, to destroy faith in God. If the argument that the sciences are an assault upon faith in God were valid, the same logic would show that the art of cookery is an assault upon faith in God. To do a thing properly, one has to take the means appropriate to the desired end. Religion is not appropriate as an answer to questions of science – it is appropriate to those questions, inso far as they are religious questions. In so far as X is a scientific issue, X must be dealt with by properly scientific methods. Religion is not one of these, because it is not a method, but a way of life – it is logically prior to the activities that make up life, somewhat as the environment is logically prior to the human activities that occur within it.

The supernatural is real – it is not scientific. So ideas of the supernatural – such as a doctrine of creation by a god or gods – have no place in the sciences. Christian theism is inadmissible, just as belief in Thor would be, or an explanation of rain by attributing it to the action of the weather-god Baal. This is not because “science is anti-Christian”, or “anti-religious”, but because it is not possible to subject allegedly divine action to the controls that make scientific work possible. If Isis has healed a blind man’s sight, there is no way of testing either that it was Isis who was responsible, rather than Thor, Marduk, Gula, Shiva or Apollo; or that the action was truly that of a divine being. If Isis is responsible for a healing – that would have to be explained in a way that did not upset Muslim, Jewish or Christian scientists. If Amaterasu is at work, an atheist & a Christian might both have difficulties w/ the evidence alleged for the action of that goddess. To explain scientific phenomena as the work of a particular deity, means making theological decisions, by choosing Isis rather than Baal, or Apollo rather than Jesus or Shiva – which scientists, as scientists, are not competent to do. Science needs to steer clear of theology if it is to stay honest, for the sake of theology as well as its own. To do otherwise is to ask for trouble.

Funny how you guys can dish it but can’t take it. Religion has had a 2,000 year head start along with far more funding. Sorry you feel like you’re losing anyways.

Peter

If higher animals did wonder why they were here, then I think that over time, over many generations, over millennia, that wonderment would at least be manifested in some form of behaviour, individual or collective, acknowledging the presence of forces above and beyond themselves and their dependency on them. But so far absolutely nothing.

SimonS

I don’t know that we would recognise such a thing if we saw it.

Certainly all of the ‘higher’ animals display complex social interactions, with behavioural patterns that don’t make external sense.

Acleron

How do you believe in facts, you can either accept them or reject them. Of course, to actively disbelieve facts is a delusion, a characteristic of creationists.

Acleron

Where else in the universe can mankind survive without taking his environment with him? Most of the baryonic mass in the universe exists in nuclear furnaces, are you trying to claim we can live there? Lol

$74497298

If “Prototype Atheist” is still reading this thread, what do you (or anyone else) think of this discussion ( Is Atheism Irrational?) ?:

Evolution is a fact, to deny the overwhelming evidence for it is irrational. There could be a debate on the actual mechanism but no observation contradicts natural selection of an imperfect inheritance system. There are several million dollars a year being wasted by religious institutions trying to find fault with the theory but to no avail. Interestingly, they are mostly incompetent because they make the assumption that godidit and then easily miss the faults in their own work, a mistake less common among scientists who go where the data take them.

Rebecca Nichol

So first of all there’s no such thing as atheist missionaries. Atheism has no dogma, no tenets, just a lack of belief in deities. People can arrive at such a position by many methods. Then there are atheist missionaries but they’re only copying off Christians. Make your mind up.

http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

I have made up my mind. It is no surprise that since you find Christianity plausible in the face of so much contradictory evidence, you’d also espouse various other conspiracy theories regarding other well-evidenced topics.

You clearly have no desire for actual knowledge, only that which confirms your preconceived biases.

$74497298

Yes, the interview only deals with the concept of God and not with any specific religion, although the interviewee is a former philosophy prof. at a US Catholic university.
Much of what he says is fairly pedestrian, but for me his comments on “belief” (his beliefs about beliefs) relating to a materialist (who is possibly also an atheist), are interesting and thought provoking.

Rebecca Nichol

Grow up and get an argument, for goodness sake. You probably have the most irrational entrenched opinions of anyone I’ve ever come across, and that’s really saying something!

As a matter of fact I’m not into conspiracy theories, only conspiracy facts:

Grow up? I’m a 32-year old man with a post-graduate degree in molecular biology and a wealth of knowledge in the areas of religion, science, and philosophy.

Get an argument? I’ve been presenting clear, logically sound arguments supported by evidence for the duration of this conversation. You’ve been completely ignoring all of it and presenting already debunked conspiracy theories and wild speculation.

I’m not entrenched in my opinions. I am interested only in truth, truth that is supported by valid empirical evidence and sound logical arguments. I don’t hold my opinions because I have a NEED to, but because that is what reality dictates. You, on the other hand, NEED your presuppositions to be validated, so you attempt to find explanations that fit into your narrative.

I should have taken the advice to not even bother with you. I had held out hope that you could be convinced to consider facts and logic, but you’ve clearly demonstrated the inability to do so. Having said that, I’ll waste no further time dealing with you and your delusions. Feel free to have the last word if you must.

Hennergogs

Shed some light on this? No.
But you could read the Catechism and Summa Theologica.

$74497298

We have some volumes of The Summa here – dating from early-mid 20thC (I think).

It seems a fairly lengthy work – could you narrow your advice down a bit and suggest which tome or area one should read?

Rebecca Nichol

Don’t split your infinitives! You do make me laugh though! You’re so unreasonable!